For some years now, the poster who goes by the name of ''Textusa'' has refused to publish posts which pose questions she either cannot or would prefer not to answer.
Textusa likes to claim that she withholds posts because they contain abusive language. In fact this is rarely the case - usually they simply point out the flaws in her ridiculous notions
So if she refuses to publish your posts and you want to have your say, send them to me. I'll put them on here for you

Translate

Monday, 7 May 2018

It's just a delusion

Well, folks, I didn't think she could get much more delusional than she already is.I was wrongSo very wrong

We think it’s consensual that the Sun’s Totman article is, we shall be kind, ridiculous.

Consensual between who - you and your multiple personalities?

The nice thing about being Textusa was never having to be alone

Before we get to the reasons why it is indeed ridiculous let’s first look at how useful it is.

Oh God help us - here we go

The first positive note is that like in the “Woman-in-purple” articles that exposed Jenny Murat, this one exposes Julian Totman.

Totman appears on the Tapas dinners bookings (got up early on May 1 to queue up and as able to reserve a table)

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/T/03_VOLUME_IIIa_Page_606.jpg

Good for him

Tapas dinners we know never existed (except the May 3 one but that wasn’t exactly a dinner in the terms we are forced to believe those dinners were supposed to be).

Oh - so now nobody dined at the Tapas? At all?

For sale - one big round table. Digital enhancement forces sale. May be prepared to include placemats

But what luck Totman had! He made jackpot as he also got to play Quiz Night (according to Quiz Mistress)

Yes, lucky chap

and which we say also never happened

Or maybe not

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2011/03/quiz-night-at-tapas.html

He certainly can tell us who won and who lost and what prizes were there were to win!

So the chap who went to a non-existent quiz night for a non-existent dinner can tell us who won? Okay.

This article also confirms that it was J Weinberger the 3rd witness who saw Pimpleman in the 2009 Mockumentary, the other 2 being Derek Flack and TS: “The force also failed to follow up on information from Paul and Julia Weinberger, pals of the Totmans, who said they had seen a pock-faced man hanging around the McCanns’ aparment twice that week.”

Were they also at the non-existent dinner? I think we should be told

Another character appearing in this article is detective Ian Horrrocks, who we spoke of in our post “Friends Reunited” also appears: “Ian Horrocks said the man Ms Tanner saw had been walking from west to east, while Dr Totman would have gone the opposite way.”

http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2012/06/friends-reunited.html

We don’t know from where Horrocks got the idea Totman says west to east. If he had told Redwood that, how could the Met rule him to be Tannerman as they did?

Maybe he used a compass, Textusa. They were very popular in the olden days, before ketamine was invented.

And again, a question that must be asked time and time again: why do retired police officers know exactly what witnesses have said to Operation Grange, know exactly who is being considered a suspect, etc? Is the Met running an internal “school-paper” which is also distributed to former officers and one of its columns is “Latest on Grange”? It seems to be the case.

Gossip, dear. Gossip.

Quite a lot of lambs to sacrifice with a ridiculous post, isn’t it? There has to be a purpose.

(Cont)Let’s first see the timing. What is happening with Maddie? Outside one tiny little thing, nothing.

Oh god - here we go. Set tinfoil to maximum, men. Let's be careful out there.

The decision to continue funding has been taken and even the article sates October as a possible closing date. Sacrificing lambs in May to produce results in September (time of the next funding decision) is ridiculous.

Where are these lambs of which you speak, oh lunatic one?

The anniversary has passed. Kate read a poem she had already read in 2012 and the lack of news was deafening and telling.

And it must be noted that the Tannerman picture remains up in the McCann website. It seems that they continue not to agree that Tannerman is Totman. So this article didn’t even change that.

Well it wouldn't, would it?

Outside this, what was/is happening?

Fuck all, the same as usual

Let’s first say what we think it was planned to be happening at around this time by the other side: the internet running amok with paedophilia and outrage to close wasteful and biased Grange.

I see no amok paedophiles. But plenty of complaints about the costs.

Neither is happening. And under the risk of sounding self-important or even arrogant, we believe that is so because of this blog. We have annulled both those “courses of action”.

*Hysterical laughter**More hysterical laughter*

Insane says we have only 6 readers.

The annual meeting of the Textusa readers society was packed to the rafters

I was being generous

Well, it seems you half a dozen are nothing short of brilliant as we’ve been able to echo effectively and efficiently what we say in the blog

Echoing bollocks? Sounds painful

Without paedo and with the “Grange legal conundrum on the table” another subject for people to pick on was urgent to find: thus Totman.

Hold on - are you claiming credit for the Totman revelation?

Thus, the reason to be ridiculous. Easy to pick and deconstruct, ideal to feed distraction. Intentionally ridiculous.

Sacrifice the lamb to distract. Something was needed to distract discussion away from the legal discussion.

I think she is, you know? What a fucking idiot.

The way Insane has reacted (among other things, coming in defense of PeterMac) to the comment told us that we were on the right track.

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Oh bless.... Ha ha ha ha ha ha

To show that the other side is just playing (and wasting) trump after trump, shows they are in a disarray.

Who is this ''other side''? As far as I can see, your 'side' consists of a small group of menopausal fuckwits who have escaped from legal custody. Presumably, the other side is all the sane people I think she imagines these 'sides' like armies of toy soldiers in her loft, subject to her whims and megalomania. She probably dresses up in a little costume, with an eye patch ......

The fact that Insane has retaken up the Walkercan1000 twitter account, tells us that the other side has given up (have just been informed that the account was suspended).

Oh dear, oh dear - are you still trying that one?! Nothing to do with me, petal 😀

All has gone back to the pre-October 2017 tactics (before the decision to take Nigel Nessling to court) which not only produced absolutely nothing as it antagonised government.

You are a remarkably stupid woman. Nessling was prosecuted for downloading child porn. It has nothing to do with the Madeleine case and certainly nothing to do with the government, antagonised or otherwise. Just a sad, pathetic, unimportant helicopter technician with a penchant for little girls

They have nothing left but confrontation. We will see how successful this tactic will be.

Who has? And who are they confronting?

So, in accordance with the above, we will not be distracted from the comment we made. We will continue to speak about it to our 6 readers and not be Totman-distracted.

That's it, dear - you fill your boots

We will no longer publish comments about Totman. All that was needed to be said about it, has been said.

Because you have already been taken to the cleaners about it

We will continue on the comment we published showing why Grange cannot question the McCanns under the penalty of closing the case if it ever does that.

A comment which is total bullshit

So far, we have only seen counter-arguments from PeterMac and Insane. We will address both soon.

7 comments:

Text firmly believes her posts are influencing whatever the next steps are going to be, it's laughable. I almost feel sorry for her as she's opening herself up to be questioned and then losing followers in the process.

What possible reason can she have to imagine the powers-that-be are hanging on her every word? She's a dimwitted blogger with a tiny following and a loose grip on reality. If her followers believe all her nonsense about nonexistent tables and negligence pirouettes, they must be as bonkers as she is.

“In our defense, readers must understand that engaging in a debate with Insane is like being inside an unfunny Dead Parrot sketch, over and over again, with us telling him that the bird is dead and him saying that he’s only resting as no vestiges of blood have been found in the cage.”

Erm - I haven’t debated it with her. Unless you include tasking the piss in this post. But then I shouldn’t be surprised, its another delusion.